3 ms·
That's blatantly and objectively wrong. The government isn't "mandating racial discrimination". They're fighting actual and de facto racial (and other) discrimi
by jmyeet 3y ago
That's blatantly and objectively wrong. The government isn't "mandating racial discrimination". They're fighting actual and de facto racial (and other) discrimination. For example:
- Housing discrimination through the Fair Housing Act [1]; and
- Racial discrimination in redistricting, affirmed by even this current Supreme Court [2].
[1]: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f...
[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-alabamas-bid-use-congressional-map-just-one-majo-rcna105688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court...
- appleskeptic 3y agoThe Commissioner Simington dissent at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A5.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A5.pdf covers this issue fairly well. The Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule has several constitutional safeguards, the only reason why the Supreme Court upheld it in the Inclusive Communities case, that this one does not. Most importantly, it has a defense for "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" business decisions, such that disparate impact protects people only from "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers." So you can comply by just making rational business decisions. Here, you can't, you have to take into account race because the only defense is "economic or technical infeasibility."